codex_app_schedule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: durability, timezone-awareness, RRULE-based recurrence, idempotency, misfire policy, and retries. This goes beyond a simple 'schedule jobs' statement, though it still omits details about action-side effects or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential capabilities without fluff. Every phrase adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool with 12 parameters, an 8-value action enum, a nested request object, and no output schema. The description does not explain action-specific behaviors, return values, or error scenarios. Given the high complexity and lack of annotation support, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the correct action and parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and there are 12 parameters. The description meaningfully maps to several key parameters (rrule, timezone, idempotencyKey, misfirePolicy, retryCount, retryBackoffSeconds, request), but it does not clarify important parameters like action values, scheduleId, name, limit, or startAt. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Create and operate') and resource ('durable timezone-aware RRULE schedules'), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling job/goal/turn tools by emphasizing scheduling semantics. It precisely communicates the core purpose without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool—for durable, timezone-aware, recurring schedules with idempotency and retries—which implies scheduling use cases versus one-off job execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.